Burning in a Rainbow Hat

Bishop: Contraception, Communion for Divorced Catholics, and Homosexual Families, A-OK, according to Pope!

According to Lifesite News, an Austrian bishop has publically taught that: ‘remarried’ Catholics now have the ‘blessing of the Pope’ to receive Communion, the use of contraception is ‘a decision of conscience’ for couples, and homosexuals can constitute a ‘family.’

The remarks by Bishop Benno Elbs were reported in the German language newspaper, Die Presse on December 23.

Now, the Bear happens to have a bit of experience with that territory. Ever since the Bear took out local warlord, Grimoald (and his horse: yum), who, with his wife, Biltrudis, had put out a contract on St. Corbinian, Germans have had a pathological fear of Bears. They call any of us who try to enter their country a “Problembär” and execute us on sight, like poor Bruno in 2006 (BLM).

There’s nothing wrong in Germany that a few hundred Bears couldn’t fix. Of course, that would be true at any time during history.

Short of that, Pope Francis’ strategy of “a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse” is working beautifully. Oh, how he keeps his lily white hands clean! He is the religious equivalent of the arms dealers he is so obsessed with. Perhaps there is a psychological reason for that. It allows his guilty conscience to acknowledge that he is injecting heresy into the Church by providing his Fifth Column with weapons.

Unless Pope Francis sharply and publically condemns Bishop Elbs, we will know that he is not legitimately exercising the duties his office. What does that mean? The Bear isn’t quite sure himself. He supposes everyone must make up their own minds.

But 2017 may be the year when Catholics must choose between their Faith and their Pope, God forbid.

2016: the year Pope Francis finally showed his hand.

Which brings us to the second article from Lifesite, whose headline gave the Bear a good laugh: “2016: the year Pope Francis finally showed his hand.” Um… okay. The writer is probably not responsible for this howler, and the article contains a pretty good bill of particulars relating to the charge that Pope Francis is… well, whatever he is, but who is clearly not a pope we need to still be writing about in 2018.

So, listen very carefully, friends, visitors, and woodland creatures. Suppose some real blogger, say Simcha Fisher, gave an interview to the New York Times, and said, “St. Corbinian’s Bear started out being suspicious about the Pope Francis, but all that’s changed. He is now a firm supporter.”

Unless the Bear corrected Fisher, and wrote a sharply worded letter to the Times denying Fisher’s claim, and went on news shows telling everyone that, no, nothing has changed, he remains alarmed by just about everything Pope Francis does, starting with waking up in the morning, why, people would assume the Bear endorsed the libelous statement.

“I’m going to Hell, but at least Satan will give me a red hat!”

“I need another cap. The last burned up again.”

Here we have a Pope who wants bishops to spread his heresies, because we are in a point in history when most bishops hold to error. And, of course, most people refuse to hold with sound doctrine. Francis knows that all he has to do is throw out the AK-47s and RPGs to his Lutherans in purple, stick his fingers in his ears, and they and his pet bloggers will do the rest.

In fact, things are so bad that unless we get a pope who will vigorously combat heresy, even an orthodox pontificate of smiling and kissing babies will not do us any good. The Bear is not certain what “vigorously combat” means to humans, but he is speaking, as he always does, as a Bear. Rawr.

If there’s anything worse than a heretic, it’s a heretic without – excuse the expression, but I am a Bear, after all – balls. At least Francis’ hero, Martin Luther had the guts to nail his 95 theses onto the church door. Pope Francis smiles and pretends to be a real pope. (Not saying he isn’t technically; not saying he is, either. The Bear has placed him on double secret probation in 2017.). Then he slips his 95 theses , page by page, to quislings, on the sly.

He pretends not to see that dubia, that damns him not for what it says, but for how he ignores it. He pretends not to hear bishops like Elbs, who are not content to go to Hell by themselves, but report down the chain of command to Satan himself, to drag as many people as they can with them, no doubt hoping Satan will at least let them burn in a red hat.

What kind of hat Francis hopes for is hard to say. Perhaps a rainbow one.

3 comments on “Burning in a Rainbow Hat”

The bear said “But 2017 may be the year when Catholics must choose between their Faith and their Pope, God forbid.”
I already made that choice over 3 years ago. I chose of course the Catholic faith.
Yet sadly I made that choice long before Bergoglio came onto the scene.
Paul VI, JPII, Benedict they said and did things that made me choose the Catholic faith over the pope too.
IMO, there’s no doubt that, as bad as all of the modernist conciliar popes are/were, Jorge Bergoglio is the worst of them all. Conciliar or pre-conciliar

Even Abp. Lefebvre is reported to have claimed that he, too, had to work daily at ridding himself of liberal notions that had been creeping into Catholic thought while he was still active, long before being dragged into heading the SSPX. He did resist the offer for some time after first being approached.

Thus, few indeed (such as Msgr. Fenton, Fr. Hanahoe, Fr. Greenstock, Fr. Garrigou-LeGrange, OP, Fr. Calmel, OP and Canon Hesse) were able to truly immunize themselves during their priestly lives, going well back into the reign of Pius XII.

As a consequence, the odds are pretty close to 0.00% that the average Catholic pewsitter hasn’t been indoctrinated deliberately and/or subconsciously since his First Holy Communion.

That said, the level of responsibility for holding ridiculous ideas about what the Church does or does not teach will inevitably be an individual case.

Which is NOT to say that the serious obligation of every Catholic, even a pope, to study the true teachings of the Church will not also weigh in at each soul’s particular judgment. In that instant, it will end in heaven, hell or purgatory.

And one particular teaching is respect for the office of the clergy, especially the Supreme Pontiff. Which is where I get concerned when some commentators weigh in.

Yes, it’s “understandable” that fifty years of obvious insanity and mayhem have taken their toll and the past nearly four years have exhausted the reserves of most when it comes to taking a deep breath, doing a little recollection and then trying to stick to facts instead of persons. ( Even though public acts by both the pope and his men and by private members of the Church do call for public recognition and/or outrage, as necessary.)

On all points, I’m just as guilty as anyone for having offended – repeatedly.

But it does trouble my conscience insofar as I do know what Bl. Pius IX wrote to a bishop who’d asked what to do if a future pope were to teach error. “Ignore him” was Papa Mastai-Ferretti’s response.

We obviously cannot allow error and worse to spread but we also might, beginning with yours truly, want to refrain from the more outlandish sarcasm which has sprouted like crab grass the past four years.

Henceforth, I’ll try to remember what I’ve just written here, stick to facts and tell others to “Ignore him” when the reigning pontiff or his officials step in it, backing up my advice with hard facts from Trent, the Sainted Popes, the REAL Councils, the Doctors, the Fathers, etc.

Well, having said the above yesterday, I am today reminded of the following:

St. John Chrysostom

Only the person who becomes irate without reason, sins. Whoever becomes irate for a just reason is not guilty. Because, if ire were lacking, the science of God would not progress, judgments would not be sound, and crimes would not be repressed.

Further, the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong.

In one way, as a simple movement of the will that inflicts punishment not through passion, but by virtue of a judgment of the reason: and in this case, without a doubt, lack of ire is a sin. This is how Chrysostom understands ire when he says: ‘Ire, when it has a cause, is not ire but judgment. For properly speaking, ire is a movement of passion. And when a man is irate with just cause, his ire does not derive from passion. Rather, it is an act of judgment, not of ire.”

In another way, ire can be understood as a movement of the sensitive appetite agitated by passion with bodily excitation. This movement is a necessary sequel in man to the previous movement of his will, since the lower appetite naturally follows the movement of the higher appetite unless some obstacle prevents it. Hence the movement of ire in the sensitive appetite cannot be lacking altogether, unless the movement of the will is altogether lacking or weak. Consequently, the lack of the passion of ire is also a vice, as it is the lack of movement in the will to punish according to the judgment of reason.